P Alleges Mayer Case Study

P alleges assault and false arrest. P claims he was a guest at a party when MOS arrived and recovered a firearm on the ground. P claims that he was not in possession of a firearm. P alleges that he was falsely arrested for criminal possession of weapon, sprayed with mace, and assaulted by MOS. Defendant MOS states that they were responding to a radio run for shots fired and a vehicle fleeing the scene. While canvassing the area, MOS observed a party in a yard which had very loud music playing and people were drinking in the street. Sgt. Arquer entered the party through the main entrance to shut down the party, and MOS Mayer entered through the side gate. As Sgt. Arquer was speaking to an individual, MOS Mayer observed P walking in his direction

Police officers including approximately six armed members of the “Special Emergency Response Team” forcibly entered the appellants’ (Bulsey & Anor) house. Bulsey was taken from his bed, placed on the floor, handcuffed and dragged out to the street and later charged with riotous assembly and destruction of a building. In subsequent committal proceedings, the respondent conceded it did not have a case against the first appellant. He was discharged. Bulsey (the first appellant) sued the respondent for damages for trespass to the person (assault, battery and false imprisonment). Anor (the second appellant) sued the respondent for damages for assault and false imprisonment. The trial judge dismissed the appellants’ claims with costs, with judgments in favour of the respondent.

Facts: On August22, 2009, While David Leon Riley was driving, the police officer stopped him because he noticed that Riley is driving with an expired registration tags. At the same time, the police officer found that Riley’s license is suspended. Which led the officer to seize his car in order to turn it to the department policy. However, while passing through the process of impounding the car another police officer was searching in Riley’s car and suddenly found two handguns under the hood. As a result, Riley was arrested. After searching about Riley occurrence and situation, an officer found that Riley has some items that are related to a gangs and bloods the officer took Riley’s cell phone “a smart phone” from his pocket and search inside the phone, the officer found picture of Riley in front of a car that was used in a crime scene “shooting”, so based on that Riley was charged that he involved in that crime. However, Riley restrained The State Alleged which is an enhanced sentence according to the crimes the cave been committed to Riley, he restrained that because the officer violets Fourth Amendment which is prohibiting searching or seizing without a warrant. Finally, the trail court

P alleges that he is a drug dealer. P alleges that from March 2010 through January 2011 defendant MOS Tepperman extorted money from him. P claims that when he refused to pay, MOS Tepperman had P arrested. P claims that MOS Tepperman was earsdropping on his cellphone conservation and tracking his whereabouts through GPS. P claims he paid MOS Tepperman money to keep the police away from him. P states that he did sell MOS Tepperman a brick of cocaine in September 2010.

P alleges temporary loss of his dog and false arrest. P alleges he was holding his dog on a leash on the street when MOS grabbed and threw him to the ground causing P to let go of the leash. P alleges that the dog lunged towards defendant MOS and MOS shot at the dog. P alleges that he was cuffed and taken to the precinct and defendant MOS took his dog to an animal dog as a lost dog. P alleges that he had to pay $280 to retrieve his dog back. P alleges that MOS did not allow his tied his dog up. P alleges that the criminal charges were, later, dismissed. No other information is known about the case. It is unclear what role, if any, Defendant MOS Jeffrey Sisco, played in this

Upon arrival Mansfield PD Officer's were on the scene and had suspect in custody. I spoke Mckay Briggs, Andrey B/M, DOB 09/07/1984, who said that after his step daughter Lovender, Ashlin DOB 06/01/2012 dance recital his mother in law Kent, Ruby DOB 05/27/1960 tried going to the stage to see Ashlin and he told her that she couldn't. Mckay Briggs said that the dance company said that only one care giver per child was allowed on stage. Mckay Briggs said that he got in front of his mother in law trying to prevent her from going on stage. Mckay Briggs said that Kent went around him and continued going on stage and again he stepped in front of her to try and prevent her from going on stage. Mckay Briggs said that the third time he got him front of Kent she pulled a taser out of her purse and begin trying to tase him. Mckay Briggs said that Kent touched him twice with the taser, but was not shocked by the taser. I spoke with Kent who said that she pulled out her taser because she felt threatened. Kent said that she never had to use the taser therefore she didn,t know how to work it. Kent said that she tried tasing Mckay Briggs, but she never made contact with him. Kent said that she was only trying to present her grand

On the above date and time, I (Dep. Kelley-Dinkins) saw Inmate Cortez Washington open cell 41 door after standing outside waiting for it to be open. I yelled out to ask Inmate Washington was he going in to stay, because he was out for rec. He did not reply, he just stood there. Inmate Washington was later seen turning his back to the day room and when he turned around I saw the door to his cell cracked open. Inmate Washington then looked over to the deputy panel where I was sitting. I motioned for him to come to me. Washington stepped to the panel and tried to explain that he wanted his cup. I told Washington he would receive a disciplinary

Bryant was advised he had a warrant for his arrest. Bryant was handcuffed, checked for fit, and double locked. Bryant was secured in the rear seat of my patrol vehicle. Bryant was cooperative and compliant.

(S1) Inmate Dennis was placed against the chow cart that was next to us and informed him once again to stop resisting and that if he continued he would receive additional write-ups. I adjusted my escort grip and we continued to escort (S1) Inmate Dennis to intake. (S1) Inmate Dennis continued his verbal tirade of name calling and threatening to kill me. Once placed in a holding tank and we released his arms (S1) Inmate Dennis turned and charged at us. The door was closed before (S1) Inmate Dennis could get out but he continued to threaten to have me

Larry was transported by AMR to Chino Valley Community Hospital. At Chino Valley Hospital, Larry claimed that he was Tased and was complaining of pain to his stomach and back. Larry was not Tased by OPD officers. I looked at Larry’s stomach and back and did not see any redness nor any visible injuries. I read Larry his Miranda rights from my department issued Miranda card. He said “yes” to all four questions indicating that he understood them. Under Miranda, Larry told me that today in the morning, his girlfriend, Stephanie Perez, dropped him off at work and they got into an argument. Larry said the argument was over Perez wanting to leave him. I asked Larry if he threatened Perez in anyway and he said no he did not threatened Perez. Larry said today at approximately 1730 hours, he was picked up by Perez from work. Larry said they drove to a check cashing place so he could cash his check. Larry said he and Perez got into an argument. The argument was again about Perez wanting to leave him. Larry said he took the vehicle key from the vehicle and went inside the store, preventing Perez from driving away. I asked him if he saw the police unit. Larry said yes he did however he was scared and did not want to be detained or arrested because he did not do anything wrong. Larry said he several times heard police officers telling him to stop running however he did not want to get arrested. Larry said he

Calhoun forwarded me his findings and informed me the incident occurred on Evening Watch, I viewed the incident on Avigilon video and determined a use of force incident report need to be completed in Blue Team. I then notified Sgt. Kizer-Hudson, who was the supervisor over 8NE, and inquired on if she was aware that the use of force incident occurred. She replied, “No.” I proceeded to show Sgt. Kizer-Hudson the video and she stated, “I remember the incident the officers called a non-compliant I responded, but they didn’t tell me about the use of force part.” I replied, what did they tell you?” Sgt. Kizer-Hudson stated, “Officer R. Dunans stated he give Inmate Mitchell verbal commands to return to his cell, inmate Mitchell refused and wanted to speak to a supervisor.” I advised Sgt. Kizer-Hudson the incident wasn’t reported and I found out about the incident when Mitchell’s attorney sent an email about his outcry. I then instructed Sgt. Kizer-Hudson to start a use of force report in Blue Team, and get statements from all officers involved as to why they failed to report the use of force to

In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Procedure: D was arrested on an outstanding bench warrant, brought a 1983 class statute. D states that invasive searches were conducted before he entered the jail which violated his 4th A rights. TC granted summary judgment, Appeals reversed, US SC held that strip searches were not reas.

Upon arrest the defendant struck police officer T. Chur. Officer Chur sustained a broken nose and bruises on his face. We would like to ask the court for the maximum sentence on the charge of assault on a police officer. Officer Chur could have sustained more injuries that could have put him out on disability and lessened his income to support his family. The prosecution hopes that the judge will take these recommendations into consideration when sentencing the defendant. The people feel that the crimes committed will best be sentenced at the maximum sentence of the death penalty because it appears that the defendant had no regard for the life of Ms. Opee and being that he is a repeat offender, this may not be his last murder. We do not want him out on the street where he is likely to hurt or kill someone else.

P alleges he was falsely arrested for criminal possession of a forged instrument. P alleges he was driving his mother’s vehicle when MOS pulled him over for failure to signal when turning. P alleges that MOS removed him from the vehicle and searched the vehicle. Defendant MOS Fusco and Barardi, from anti-crime,state that they observed P’s vehicle to have a defective left tail light and pulled him over. MOS approached P and observed a large amount of cigarettes in the trunk through the back seat. MOS state that P gave MOS consent to search the vehicle. MOS conducted a search and recovered a large amount of cigarette cartons with fraudulent tax stamps and all the stamps contained the same serial number. P was arrested and remained in custody